Saudien uskonnolliset johtajat kehottivat lisäksi boikotoimaan tanskalaistuotteita mikäli Tanska ei esitä asiassa anteeksipyyntöä.
I have a opinion... but in the nutshell: "You

EU:n kauppakomissaari Peter Mandelson otti kiistan eilen esiin tavatessaan saudiministerin Davosissa. Mandelsonin edustaja Peter Power kertoo, että komissaari oli kehottanut painottamaan tilanteen vakavuutta Saudi Arabian hallitukselle.

"Jokaista tanskalaistuotteisiin kohdistuvaa boikottia pidetään eurooppalaistuotteisiin kohdistuvana boikottina", Power muotoilee.

Below is a very quick and rough translation of the article, in which the 12 drawings were pictured:

---

The comedian Frank Hvam recently admitted that he dare not use the Koran on his television shows. An artist, who is to depict the prophet Muhammed in a children book, wishes to be anonymous. The same goes for western-European translators of an Islam-critical essaycollection. A leading artmuseum removes a piece of art in fear of muslim reaction. In the theatre-season, 3 shows with bite and satire, pointed against the US president Bush is on stage, but not one about Osama Bin Laden and his allies, and during a meeting with Prime Minister Fogh Rasmussen, an Iman encourages the government to use its influence over the Danish media, to give a more positive picture of Islam.

The examples gives reason to worry, whether the fear is based on a false statement or not. The fact is that it remains and leads to selfcensurship. There is an intimidation in the public space. Artists, writers, translators, cartoonists and dramatics avoids the most important cultural meeting of our time, the meeting between islam and the seclure western society founded in Christianity.

The modern secular society is refused by some muslims. They demand special treatment, insisting on special needs for religious feelings. This is incompatible with a temporal democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be able to suffer mock, scorn and ridicule. It is not always pretty and sympathetic and nice to watch, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be ridiculed at all cost, but that is not essential in this case.

It is by no means a coincidence, that people in dictatorships goes to prison for telling jokes, or depicturing the ruler critical. It often happens with a note, so it offends people’s feelings.
We have not come that far in Denmark yet, but the examples proves, that we are on a volplane, where no one can predict, where selfcensureship will end.

This is why Jyllandsposten has incourged members of the Danish magaizinecartoonist union, to depict Muhammed, as they see him. 12 out of 40 have answered, and we bring their pictures.

Only 25 out of 40 is active, and some of them are under a clause from other papers. Some have sent their reasons for saying no, and other have been busy with other work assignments, while other have not replied back.
---
In Jyllandsposten september 30th 2005, with 12 drawings.

Well, then to what I think...

Well, I have so far only seen one of the drawings - and I must admit it doesn't offend me - but then again - I am not a muslim.

I must first state, that a cartoon of Muhammed being pictured as a pig is a false one - it has never been published or printed - even though some claim it.

It is a very delicate subject. But what I do think is that why on earth should danish companies be boycotted - they haven't done anything wrong. It is the same thing, as judging one man on face of his religion - you can't do that - plain stupid and arrogant.

As for the pictures - yes - it was a very stupid stunt to start a discussion - it was silly. But nevertheless - so what - I personly don¨t like the paper - right-wing, but they should print what they want - as long as it is within the law. I don¨t agree with much of this paper anyway.

But I will stand by the papers right to print its own stories. Period. We have freedom of speech in Denmark - and the government have NO possible actions it can take towards the paper - which is very good.

If the muslims feel offended - then stop buying the paper. If they think it breaks the law - sue the paper. Have neither happened - no. But instead leading muslim leaders in Denmark went on a tour to arab countries so they could condemm Denmark.

Now - why is that. If anything - that really opens a wall of misunderstanding and mistrust. Ignore it and condem it and enter a real discussion about religous believs contra freedom and speech - that would have given something. But not this supid boycot. All that will do, is widen the gab between danes and muslim immigrants - and that is wide enough as it is.

The links below are not meant as personal picks. They are meant as information purposes only - I was really surprised when I found them - and would rather they didn't take the case up, as it brings more fuel to the fire.

Most important - the cartoons: www.samizdata.net/blog/arch...08395.html

Buy Danish campaigns: hnn.us/blogs/3.html , www.advar.org/eng.html , medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/...h.html , ourmanintirana.blogspot.com/2006....html , michellemalkin.com/

Egyptian blog: bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/

Another blog: time.blogs.com/daily_dish..._is_ro.html

Besides that a very 'interesting' site: www.nicedoggie.net/2006/

www.um.dk/en/servicemen...AndAnswers.htm

French newspaper France Soir, has reprinted all 12 drawings of the Profet today - wed.

I wonder how this will be recieved.

It looks like the Swedes are now being dragged into this mess as well. I guess all Scandinavians are being lumped together (but not the Fins).

Anyway, I don't think there is much that can be done at this point. Looks like we just have to wait for the fires to burn out.

In the name of free speech, I propose a festival this summer in Denmark. To celebrate their love of freedom, they will showcase just how tolerant they are. Here is the program so far (it is just a rough draft):

Day 1
-------
Muslims dressed with black hoods will ransack a replica of a church and spit in the holy water. They will then blow it up while a crowd screams, "Allah Akbah!" (God is Great).

Day 2
-------
Right-wing youths will defecate on copies of the Koran and then set it on fire.

Day 3
--------
Men in KKK hoods will set fire to crosses.

Anyone care to add to this? Please contact various newspapers in Europe asking for their support. There is just to much self-censorship going on and I feel people should be encouraged to hate one another.

Here's an interesting article

-----

Twelve drawings of Muhammad printed in a major Danish newspaper have turned millions of Muslims against Denmark. But three images that had nothing to do with the campaign that were shown to Muslim leaders on a trip by a group of Muslims living in Denmark may have contributed to the angry reaction.

The explosive tensions between Danes and the Arab World this week drew ugly comparisons to a conflict of civilizations and raised uncomfortable memories of the fatwa issued against author Salman Rushdie in the 1980s over his novel "The Satanic Verses," which Muslim groups claim disparaged their religion's central figure, Muhammad. But Denmark's crisis has been simmering for months.

Islam forbids the depiction of the religion's founder Muhammad, and Muslims in Denmark grew outraged after the Jyllands Post newspaper, a major Danish daily, published a series of 12 political cartoons in September that depicted the prophet in various disparaging contexts. When they responded -- through letters to the editor and complaints within the community -- they felt ignored.

One group of Danish Muslims, led by a young imam named Ahmed Akkari, grew so frustrated by the inability of Muslims to get their message across in Denmark that they compiled a dossier of racist and culturally insensitive images circulating in the country and took them on an road show in the Arab World to raise awareness of the discrimination they faced.

"There is currently a climate (in Denmark) that is contributing to an increase in racism," the group warned in the introduction to a 43-page dossier it prepared before traveling to Egypt in late 2005. It dedicated the rest of the dossier to "drawings and pictures" that disparaged Islam and "denigrated the prophet." The offending images included Muhammad with a bomb wrapped in his turban. The Muslim community in the small Scandinavian country erupted in anger -- not only did the images denigrate Islam's central figure, they felt they also equated all Muslims with terrorism.

Tivoli Gardens and Islamophobia

To Muslim leaders in Denmark like Akkari and fellow imam Abu Laban, the images provided evidence of an Islamophobia that they believe permeates Danish society. Worse yet, they felt their protests against racism had been ignored. Newspapers failed to publish their letters to the editor and politicians seemed unwilling to listen. "As a group in society, we've simply been ignored," Akkari told the Aarhus-based daily Stiftstidende earlier this month.

Akkari and his group traveled together to Cairo, where they visited Al-Azhar University, which has a reputation for building bridges between Egypt and Europe. Akkari said he wanted to draw attention to the racist climate in order to prevent a repeat of the Theo Van Gogh drama in the Netherlands. In 2004, a radical Islamist murdered Van Gogh, motivated by the filmmaker's criticism of Muslims.

Kaare Quist, a journalist at the Danish daily Ekstra Bladet, who has been reporting on the story for a number of weeks, says the group found a number of highly placed officials in the Arab World keen to listen to its message. Quist told SPIEGEL ONLINE they included representatives of the Arab League, Egypt's grand mufti and other high-level officials. The trip the group made, Quist believes, helped to raise attention to the political cartoons in Jyllands Post and prejudices against Denmark's Muslims. Denmark has a total of 5.4 million people residing from the northern German border to the base of the Oresund Bridge, including 270,000 Muslims who make up 5 percent of the population.

Quist says the dossier they shared in Egypt may have been far more damaging than the Jyllands Post episode -- and it may have further exacerbated misgivings between Denmark and the Arab world. In addition to the now notorious caricatures published by the newspaper which have now spread like wildfire in the blogosphere, it also included patently offensive anti-Muslim images that had been sent to the group by other Muslims living in Denmark. The origins or authenticity of the images haven't been confirmed, but their content was nevertheless damaging. Quist says the dossier included three obscene caricatures -- one showed Muhammad as a pedophile, another as a pig and the last depicted a praying Muslim being raped by a dog.

"The drawings in Jyllands Post were harmless compared to these," he says.

For his part, Akkari said the more outrageous images were clearly separated from those published by the paper when the group met with Muslim leaders. "They were at the back of the folder," he told Stiftstidende. By including them, the group sought to show the kind of hate they feel subjected to in Denmark.

Stoking the fire?

But Quist claims the group may also have perpetuated misunderstandings during its trip. The reporter says that Arabs who visited with the group later claimed Akkari's delegation had given them the impression that Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen somehow controlled or owned Jyllands Post.

"I believe that this misunderstanding was unintentional," Quist said, reviewing his research. "But I also think that they are also trying to profit from the agitation."

Still, whether the trip by Akkari's group had any impact or not, Fogh Rasmussen and the editors of Jyllands Post are on the defensive this week, dodging bomb threats and a growing diplomatic crisis. The episode also sparked a strong debate in the European media about free speech and whether editors in other European countries should stand together in support of free speech and a Danish paper that pushes the wrong buttons or whether they should scorn a series of cartoons that perpetuated uncomfortable stereotypes about Muslims.

The newspaper's editor issued an apology this week. And the Danish prime minister, who earlier said it would be inappropriate for him to apologize for a newspaper's right to free of speech, did say he hoped the apology would "contribute to the comfort of those who have been hurt."

But sentiment against Denmark is strong. Earlier this week, Arab countries including Saudi Arabia, Libya and Jordan, have staged loosely organized, impromptu boycotts that have led many companies, including France's Carrefour supermarket chain, to remove Danish products from their shelves. Denmark's Jyske Bank has estimated that a one-year Arab boycott of Danish food products could result in lost revenues of €322 million and the loss of as many as 4,000 jobs.

In addition, Arabs have taken their protests to the street, to the Internet and to the sphere of official international diplomacy. Arab hackers have attacked the server of Jyllands Post's Web site and several countries have threatened to recall their ambassadors from Copenhagen.

service.spiegel.de/cache/in...4,00.html

Looks like the french paper sacked its managing editor and apologized....

-----

Newspapers in France, Germany, Spain and Italy yesterday reprinted caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, escalating a row over freedom of expression which has caused protest across the Middle East.

France Soir and Germany's Die Welt published cartoons which first appeared in a Danish newspaper, although the French paper later apologised and apparently sacked its managing editor. The cartoons include one showing a bearded Muhammad with a bomb fizzing out of his turban.

The caricatures, printed last September in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten newspaper and reprinted by a Norwegian magazine, have provoked uproar across the Middle East. Italy's La Stampa printed a smaller version on an inside page yesterday, while two Spanish papers, Barcelona's El Periódico and Madrid's El Mundo, carried images of the cartoon as it appeared in the Danish press. The pictures also appeared in Dutch and Swiss newspapers.

There have been protests in several countries yesterday, as well as a boycott of Danish goods. Saudi Arabia has withdrawn its ambassador to Copenhagen, Syria recalled its chief diplomat, while Libya has closed its embassy. On Monday, gunmen from al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade briefly occupied the EU's office in the Gaza Strip, demanding that Denmark and Norway apologise. There was a bomb hoax at the Danish embassy in the Syrian capital, Damascus, yesterday.

The front page of the daily France Soir carried the defiant headline: "Yes, we have the right to caricature God," and a cartoon of Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian gods floating on a cloud. Inside, the paper ran the drawings.

But last night it was reported that the paper's managing editor had been sacked and an apology issued. According to Agence France Presse, France Soir's owner, Raymond Lakah, said that he removed Jacques Lefranc "as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual".

The paper's initial decision drew condemnation from the French foreign ministry, which acknowledged the importance of freedom of expression but said France condemned "all that hurts individuals in their beliefs or their religious convictions". The rare governmental rebuke revealed domestic sensitivity; France is home to western Europe's largest Muslim community with an estimated 5 million people. Germany has about 3 million.

The centre-right Die Welt also ran the caricature on the front page, reporting that Muslim groups had forced the Danish newspaper to issue an apology. It described the protests as hypocritical, pointing out Syrian TV had depicted Jewish rabbis as cannibals. Yesterday Roger Köppel, editor-in-chief of Die Welt, said he had no regrets. He told the Guardian: "It's at the very core of our culture that the most sacred things can be subjected to criticism, laughter and satire. If we stop using our journalistic right of freedom of expression within legal boundaries then we start to have a kind of appeasement mentality. This is a remarkable issue. It's very important we did it. Without this there would be no Life of Brian."

Muslim groups in both countries were furious. "It's odious and we totally disapprove of it," said Dalil Boubakeur, president of the French Muslim Council. "It's a real provocation towards the millions of Muslims in France." The council planned legal action against France Soir, he said, and he intended to complain to Denmark's ambassador.

The "blasphemous" cartoons were reminiscent of the caricatures of Jews published by the Nazi propaganda sheet Der Stürmer, Michael Muhammad Pfaff, of the German Muslim League, told the Guardian."Press freedom shouldn't be used to insult people. We Germans need to know our history."

Denmark 's prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, on Monday begged Arab countries not to boycott Danish products. Lego and Bang & Olufsen have been boycotted, and a Danish milk firm in Riyadh has had to close. The Arab League condemned the cartoons, demanding those responsible "be punished".

On the net, Iraqi groups threatened attacks against the 500 Danish soldiers in southern Iraq. Muslim hackers have tried to shut the Danish newspaper's website and a hoax bomb threat yesterday forced its building to be evacuated.

Extract from yesterday's France Soir

It is necessary to crush once again the infamous thing, as Voltaire liked to say. This religious intolerance that accepts no mockery, no satire, no ridicule. We citizens of secular and democratic societies are summoned to condemn a dozen caricatures judged offensive to Islam. Summoned by who? By the Muslim Brotherhood, by Syria, the Islamic Jihad, the interior ministers of Arab countries, the Islamic Conferences - all paragons of tolerance, humanism and democracy.

So, we must apologise to them because the freedom of expression they refuse, day after day, to each of their citizens, faithful or militant, is exercised in a society that is not subject to their iron rule. It's the world upside down. No, we will never apologise for being free to speak, to think and to believe.

Because these self-proclaimed doctors of law have made this a point of principle, we have to be firm. They can claim whatever they like but we have the right to caricature Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, Yahve and all forms of theism. It's called freedom of expression in a secular country ...

For centuries the Catholic church was little better than this fanaticism. But the French Revolution solved that, rendering to God that which came from him and to Caesar what was due to him.

www.guardian.co.uk/religion...4,00.html

By the way, I really like this spiegel site. Is it German? I think I will use this as my source for European news from now on.

Anyway, here's another interesting artcicle:

service.spiegel.de/cache/in...7,00.html

Another interesting article: www.iht.com/articles/200...toon.brit.php

Here's another interesting one:

-----

Muslim condemnation of the European media campaign to reprint controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed spread on Thursday, with leaders warning the controversy could play into the hands of extremists.

President Hosni Mubarak said the reprinting of the cartoons – originally published by Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, they were reproduced this week in newspapers across Europe – would lead to serious repercussions, inflaming sentiment in the Muslim world and among European Muslim communities. Insensitive handling of the issue, he said, would give more pretexts to extremists and terrorists to carry out attacks.

In Saudi Arabia, Prince Nayef, the interior minister and staunch conservative, said the cartoons were an insult to all Muslims, and suggested the Vatican should intervene to put an end to the spread of the cartoons.

Tayyip Erdogan, prime minister of Turkey, a European Union candidate country, deemed the cartoons an “attack on our spiritual values”, and called for a limit on press freedom.

Images of the prophet are considered blasphemous by Muslims so depicting Mohammed as a bomber, as in one of the original cartoons, was certain to spark an uproar. The row has also erupted at a very sensitive time in Muslim relations with the west. Five years after the attacks of September 11 and the launch of the “war against terror”, many Muslim Arabs still feel that their religion, rather the minority terrorists in their midst, is under attack.

Concerns over terrorism have also caused tensions within European society, where Muslims are the fastest growing minority. There were some exceptions on Thursday to the otherwise widespread indignation, however.

Jordanian independent tabloid al-Shihan reprinted three of the cartoons on Thursday, saying people should know what they were protesting about, AFP news agency reported. “Muslims of the world be reasonable,” wrote editor Jihad Momani. “What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?”

On the streets of Cairo, some people acknowledged that the region had far more serious problems to worry about and indeed protest against. But as Abdulfattah, a 23-year-old commerce graduate from Cairo University, said: “Although it’s a tiny issue compared to the other issues we are facing in the region like the US aggression in Iraq, this is something people feel they can do something about and protest about. It’s their way of venting their anger.”

The decision to reprint the Danish cartoons, which were first published in September, appeared to be a deliberate attempt to challenge what several European newspapers see as fundamentalist pressure. Some newspapers also pointed out that there is no outrage when Jews are ridiculed in cartoons.

“Enough lessons from these reactionary bigots! Just because the Koran bans images of Mohammad doesn’t mean non-Muslims have to submit to this,” said Serge Faubert, editor of France Soir, the French newspaper which reprinted the cartoons on Wednesday.

news.ft.com/cms/s/52cb60...779e2340.html

Here's another interesting one. Looks like things are starting to heat up in France. I think it's only a matter of time before all Europeans will be blamed for this.

service.spiegel.de/cache/in...7,00.html

Guess what I just found out... desecration of foreign flags and symbols is ILLEGAL in Denmark... EXCEPT for the Danish flag... How about that?

Censorship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think we should all show our support for freedom of speech and burn the Danish flag.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration

Read the bottom of this article about Al Qaeda...

-----

Amman, 2 Feb. (AKI) - In an apparent U-turn, the publishers of the Amman-based al-Shihan weekly - which on Thursday published three of the 12 controversial Danish cartoons satirising the Prophet Mohammed - has withdrawn all copies of the newspaper. In a note, the owner says it is "suprised" by the paper's publication of the Danish cartoons, condemns these, and says it is investigating the matter, and will "severely" punish those responsible. The cartoons, first published by the Danish Jyllands-Posten newsper last year and more recently in newspapers in France, Germany and Italy, have caused growing fury in Muslim communities in the Middle East and Europe.

Shihan published the cartoons in an article headlined 'Intifada against the Danish insult', which invites Muslims to reflect to reflect "intelligently" on the issues and to be "reasonable", the al-Arabiya Arab satellite television station reported.

One of the cartoons - first published by Jyllands-Posten last year - and published on Thursday by Shihan depicts the Prophet as a terrorist with a bomb - its fuse lit - resting on top of his turban. The paper's editor asks readers: "What brings more prejudice against Islam, a foreigner's depiction of the Prophet, or a suicide-bomber who blows himself up at a wedding ceremony in Amman?"

The furore over the satirical cartoons shows no signs of abating. Tunisian and Moroccan authorities have banned copies of the French France Soir daily - which on Wednesday published all 12 cartoons - from entering their countries.

Meanwhile, in the Palestinian territories, a group of 50 armed militants surrounded the European Union offices, demanding their closure. In the Iranian capital, Tehran, the authorities have summoned the Austrian ambassador to present a formal complaint. Austria currently hold the rotating presidency of the European Union.

Al-Qaeda has also announced it intends to unleash a holy war and to carry out "a bloody attack" against Denmark in retaliation for the cartoon, according to a statement sent by the al-Qaeda-linked Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades to the pan-Arab daily al-Quds al-Arabi on Wednesday.

Consumers and shops in a number of Muslim countries are boycotting Danish products. This is despite an apology issued by Jyllands-Posten - which received several bomb threats in the last two days - and an appeal for calm by the Danish government.

Another interesting article... written by a Dane of Pakistani discent.

www.iht.com/articles/200...s/denmark.php

Yet another interesting article:

-----

Every conversation quickly comes round to the subject, and opinion has become sharply polarised. The majority of Danes can't see what the fuss is about - a "storm in a teacup", said one, while Danish Muslims are incensed by what they see as only the latest evidence of an increasingly Islamophobic country.

Such sharp divisions over Islam have become a characteristic over the last 10 years in Denmark, profoundly shaking its sense of identity as tolerant and egalitarian. What the cartoon issue has exposed to global scrutiny is the passionate and often ugly debate here about what Denmark's 170,000 Muslims have to do to integrate.

At the centre of the storm over the publication of the cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad is Ahmad Akkari. He has the role of explaining the Muslim position to an increasingly irritated Danish audience who are now seriously alarmed that this row is threatening the security of Danes in the Middle East and damaging economic interests.

"We are against censorship. We believe in free speech. Many of us fled our countries because of the lack of free speech," insists Mr Akkari, a social worker. "But what we told the editor of Jyllands-Posten [the paper which first printed the cartoons last September] is that they had picked the wrong test case for this freedom. They've picked on one of the most marginalised communities in this country, one that has many social problems and who have been struggling against Islamophobia here.'

Mr Akkari, 28, believes the cartoons were gratuitous and tasteless. He argues that it is his right to free speech to criticise the newspaper for associating all Muslims with violence by illustrating the Prophet with a bomb in his turban.

He is baffled why other European newspapers have chosen to inflame the situation by reprinting the cartoons. "From the start, we haven't asked the government to apologise. All we wanted was a clear stand from them that Muslims' freedom of belief would be safeguarded. From the newspaper, we want a clear apology."

Opinion polls indicate that 70% of Danes thought it was right to publish the cartoons, and every Dane prefaces their remarks with a fervent declaration of the importance of free speech. Many argue that if someone comes to their country, they must accept its values.

But those on the left fear the cartoons were the last straw for Muslims antagonised by an increasingly xenophobic attitude towards immigrants. They struggle to reconcile two conflicting principles - free speech and tolerance. What is now at stake is not just Denmark's reputation for tolerance and espousal of human rights but the Danes' very sense of national identity.

"I'm ashamed. As a young man, I travelled around the world and I was convinced that we had the best country and that we had found the solution to living together," says Martin Lidegaard a member of parliament for the opposition party, the Radical Liberals. "I was very proud but I'm not now."

Meanwhile, among Copenhagen Muslims there is real fury. Abubeker Idris pours out a bitter story of how he has tried to establish himself in Denmark over the last 20 years, but despite qualifications and perfect Danish, he has had more than 500 job rejections. He is now working as a taxi driver. "If there was a point to the cartoons, it might be different but what purpose do they serve? I respect Danish laws and pay my taxes, why can't they respect my feelings? I'm still called a foreigner. A member of the parliament called Muslims a cancer in Denmark, kill the cancer or it will kill you, she said - and no one challenged her."

For Manu Saleem, a Copenhagen councillor, the cartoons have been seized upon by Muslim groups as concrete proof of the Islamophobia they experience in Denmark, he says. A Dane of Indian background and a non-Muslim, he recognises the importance of freedom of speech to Danes - "they believe it is a Danish invention" - but he also insists: "If you have free speech, you also have a responsibility towards the people you are speaking about."

His concern is how the current crisis will deepen the segregation which has developed in Denmark over the last decade as Muslims have clustered in ghettos in its major cities, particularly in Copenhagen. One third of school children in the capital are from ethnic minorities. "Research last year showed that more and more of the ethnic minorities here don't feel they are Danish and don't feel any obligation to Danish society. At the same time, 50% of 'ethnic Danes' say they don't want to have any contact with ethnic minorities."

Ethnic minorities are disproportionately likely to be unemployed or in low paid jobs, but the most worrying trend to Mr Saleem is that of those who leave school at 16 without basic reading and writing skills, 56% are from ethnic minority backgrounds. One of the most expensive education systems in the world is failing them. For a small country which prides itself on a highly educated, skilled workforce, the chances of these young people getting jobs are small.

"In 1980, there were 40,000 immigrants and by 2020 there will be 471,000 on current trends, and there is a real danger that the underclass will get much bigger," said Mr Saleem.

www.guardian.co.uk/religion...3,00.html

About 300 militant Indonesian Muslims went on a rampage inside the lobby of a Jakarta building housing the Danish embassy on Friday in protest over cartoons that Muslims say insult Islam and the Prophet Mohammad.

Shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is Greatest), the white-clad protesters from the hardline Islamic Defender's Front (FPI) smashed lamps with bamboo sticks and threw chairs around in anger at cartoons originally published by a Danish daily.

They also threw rotten eggs and tomatoes at the Danish embassy symbol inside the lobby. The embassy is on the 25th floor of the building and protesters were unable to get past security in the lobby, a Reuters photographer said.

Outrage has erupted in the Middle East after more European newspapers published the cartoons, which were originally published by Danish daily Jyllands-Posten last September. Muslims consider any images of Mohammad to be blasphemous.

About 100 Indonesian policemen watched the FPI protesters as they made fiery speeches calling on the government of the world's most populous Muslim nation to sever diplomatic ties with Denmark and evict its ambassador.

The protesters dispersed after an hour. There were no arrests.

Newspapers in France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and Hungary have reprinted the caricatures this week, saying press freedom was more important than the protests and boycotts they have provoked.

Many Arab commentators said the European defence rings hollow because, they said, European media protected Judaism and Israel from criticism.

www.alertnet.org/thenews/n...AK7341.htm

Denmark, best known for its liberal welfare society, Lego, Carlsberg and voting no to EU treaties, has suddenly become the unlikely epicentre of an escalating conflict between the Western and Muslim worlds.

An outcry over a themed page last September on self-censorship and freedom of speech in Jyllands-Posten, Denmark’s biggest newspaper, featuring 12 cartoons of Prophet Mohammed, has this week snowballed into the country’s biggest international crisis in recent history.

Known more for its peacekeeping contributions than belligerence, some analysts say a conflict of cultures has been brewing in Denmark for some time. The country’s growing anti-immigrant sentiment and the hardline immigration policies of the centre-right government, led by prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, have created tensions in the traditionally tolerant society.

The controversy has been escalating since October when Mr Rasmussen declined a request to meet a number of ambassadors from Muslim countries, who wanted to discuss the drawings of Prophet Mohammed. Images of the prophet are considered blasphemous under Islam.

Thomas Blach, sociologist of religion and managing partner at Firstline Communications, says Mr Fogh Rasmussen’s government, which relies on parliamentary backing from the nationalist Danish People’s Party, has underestimated the concerns over the drawings and should take the outcry as a cue to improve its relations with the local Muslim population.

“The government should focus on solving the problem here. After 9/11 George W. Bush took off his shoes and went for a meeting with the Muslim community in the US. It should be possible for Anders Fogh Rasmussen to do so, too,” Mr Blach says.

Imam Abdul Wahid Pedersen, one of Denmark’s most prominent Muslim leaders, says: “It is not the pictures, it is the whole hostile environment in Denmark during the recent years. The pictures were just the last straw.”

On Thursday, Mr Rasmussen bowed to the pressure and invited all the ambassadors in Denmark to hear his views on the freedom of expression yesterday.

Out of a population of 5.4m, there are 200,000 Muslims in Denmark. Until the 1960s, the country had mostly experienced immigration only from other European countries.

The polarisation of traditionally uniform Danish society is reflected in the recent rise of the Danish People’s party, a far-right populist party that holds 13 per cent of the seats in the parliament. As the centre-right government relies on its support, it has been able to push through strict immigration laws, including a rule that prevents Danish citizens aged 24 or younger from bringing their spouses from non-EU countries.

The crisis surrounding the cartoons has increased the popularity of the Danish Peoples’ party, many of whose most prominent members have made openly racist comments. Support for the party has jumped from 12 per cent to 14.5 per cent in the past month, according to Børsen, the business newspaper.

Although internationally Danes are known for their generous foreign aid and contributions to peacekeeping, the country’s foreign policy has changed in recent years. In 2003 Denmark entered the US-led war in Iraq and has since been one of Washington’s most loyal allies, which has sparked repeated threats from terrorist groups against the Nordic country.

Criticism from the opposition has been muted during the present crisis and most Danes seem to be taking the crisis calmly.

According to an opinion poll published in Børsen yesterday, 80 per cent of Danes think the Mohammed cartoons have damaged Denmark’s reputation. “The image of Denmark has been torn,” Ole Wøhlers Olesen, senior adviser from the Danish Institute for International studies says.

news.ft.com/cms/s/53a5f2...779e2340.html

Washington on Friday condemned caricatures in European newspapers of the Prophet Mohammad, siding with Muslims who are outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.

By inserting itself into a dispute that has become a lightning rod for anti-European sentiment across the Muslim world, the United States could help its own battered image among Muslims.

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

"We call for tolerance and respect for all communities for their religious beliefs and practices," he added.

Major U.S. publications have not republishing the cartoons, which include depictions of Mohammad as a terrorist. That is in contrast to European media, which responded to the criticism against the original Danish newspaper that printed the caricatures by republishing the offensive images themselves.

today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx

Interesting interview...

-----

Angry Muslims marched through cities across the Arab world on Friday, continuing angry protests against caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in European papers.

In a Q&A, NBC News’ Charlene Gubash explains why people in the Palestinian-governed Gaza Strip and elsewhere in the Mideast are so offended by the cartoons, for which they are demanding an apology.


What is it about these cartoons that have outraged people in the Arab world, and in Gaza in particular?

First of all, it is against Islam to portray the Prophet Muhammad, or any pictures of what God might look like. Likewise, it is against their religion to portray any other prophet, including Jesus or Moses, because they also revere those religious figures as well.

Beyond that, they are very upset that the cartoons appeared to link the prophet to terrorism. They believe that the West is labeling all Arabs as terrorists after 9/11.

So these cartoons really hit a raw nerve as far as their religion is concerned. Most people in the Arab world are not necessarily very extreme in their religiosity, but they are religious people, so this totally goes against the grain of their beliefs. Religion is such a sensitive topic here, even more so than in the West.


What was the reaction on the street in Gaza today?

Right now, this is really a hot issue. That said, the cartoons came out two months ago and at that time, there was very little popular reaction and very little news coverage of it. To put things in perspective, there were no demonstrations in today in Egypt, the most populous Arab country.

And even with the demonstrations in Gaza today, at least the ones that I saw — in which there were thousands of people — a lot of them are supporters of extremist, militant Islamic groups. So, while although I think it has angered many people, it has not angered most of them to the point of demonstrating. I didn’t see the huge numbers of people on the streets in Gaza that I would have expected.

However, I did see one demonstration with a huge group of young girls demonstrating and shouting, but many of the demonstrators were obviously supporters of militant groups — seeing some demonstrators with weapons made that clear.

And there was violence attached to some of the demonstrations — on Thursday night where they threw an explosive at a French cultural center.


Aside from the large demonstrations today, what sort of reaction did you hear from more moderate Palestinians?

Surprising anger. We spoke today to Dr. Asad Abu Sharak, a professor of linguistics at Al Azhar University in Gaza. He is considered to be a moderate and belongs to a group that sponsors an interfaith dialog with Christian and Jews, called Sabel.

Sharak said that he believes that this is part of a conspiracy against the Muslim community and “this is a premeditated campaign against the Muslims on the part of the West.”

He says that the publication of these cartoons is causing “a clash of civilizations that it will widen the gap of misunderstanding between the West and the East.”

He said he believed that this was an example of a double standard, that when someone denigrates the Holocaust they throw them in jail. But when someone denigrates the religious figure that Muslims hold most dear, they call it freedom of speech. He believes that the publication of the cartoons is actually a “premeditated crime” against Muslims and that “those people who published those cartoons should be brought to court.”

And this is coming from someone who is considered to be very moderate, but this was his attitude. Sharak lived in Ireland eight years and lived and taught at the University of Michigan for a year.

He doesn’t see this as an isolated incident, but rather as a campaign against Islam, and he was very vehement about that.


Are the protests about this particular cartoon or are the cartoons more of a trigger for pent-up anti-Western sentiment?

The protesters are focused on these cartoons, but during the demonstrations they also were protesting against the United States and they were chanting “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” So this is kind of a vehicle for anger. Activists are using the cartoon as a way to get people riled up

That was something that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said. He criticized the publications of the cartoons in the newspapers, saying that they should stay away from religion — acknowledging that there is freedom of speech, but it should stay away from religion. He warned that extremists would use this as a wave to ride.

And I think that was exactly what was happening in Gaza today — it wasn’t just the cartoons that were at issue, but that they were being used to whip people up into a frenzy and get them out into the street.


Is there any end in sight to these protests?

Not yet. In a written statement, Sheik Youseff Qaradawi, a very popular TV sheik who appears on Al-Jazeera and all over the Arab world on religious programming — and is considered semi-moderate — called for a "day of Muslim rage." I think that helped get people out into the street because he has a lot of support across the Arab world. He also asked people to boycott Danish products.

I know that the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is reaching out to diplomats and leaders in the Arab world to try to explain the situation, but reiterating that his government can not interfere with issues concerning the press.

Everybody in the Muslim world, though, wants a clear-cut apology. They don’t want the caveat of free speech, they want a clear-cut apology. So, maybe it won’t go away until they hear those words, “I’m sorry.”

msnbc.msn.com/id/11164199/

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. For those of you who are tired of reading, check out this photo gallery:

www.spiegel.de/fotostreck...380,00.html

Another interview...

www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/...ns_02-02.html

The great debate gathered pace over a remarkable week on whether the right to express a view - whatever the cost in terms of damage to racial and religious harmony - must be defended without question


ANDREW ROBERTS, historian
“I have seen the cartoons and was unimpressed by them. They are the intellectual equivalent equivalent of shouting “fire” in a crowded cinema. While there is a need for a genuine discussion about the rights of the West to define its own boundaries of free speech, these cartoons are trite, purposely provocative and unnecessary. In this case, the protesting Muslims have a point.

“Western civilisation loses out if these insulting images are the best critique that we can make. But I would point out that many Muslims, particularly in the Arab world, would have a stronger argument in favour of censorship if they began to withdraw the anti-Jewish, and occasionally antiChristian, cartoons that often appear in their own newspapers.”


TARIQ MODOOD, Professor of Sociology, Politics and Public Policy at the University of Bristol

“This week Parliament, supported by the liberal intelligentsia, decided that religious hatred was a lesser problem than racial hatred and could be effectively dealt with by weaker legislation. Events in the world are testing this view. While some want to demonstrate their right to provoke religious people, others want to demonstrate their right to be provoked. The ideal that there might be a culture of mutual respect looks forlorn, but are we also to give up on the second best of conflict-avoidance?

“In any case, satire should check the powerful, not hurt the powerless. The underlying causes of the Muslim anger is a deep sense that they are not respected, that they and their most cherished feelings are ‘fair game’.”


PETER BROOKES, Times cartoonist

“I only saw the drawings yesterday. My first reaction was ‘what feeble cartoons’. Perhaps I don’t understand Danish humour, but there was only one out of the 12 — where Muhammad’s turban seems to be a bomb — that seemed to have any meaning.

“But even that one is a poor cartoon. It is ambivalent. You can read it one of two ways: either terrorism is using the cloak of Islam, is dressing itself as Muhammad, or that Muhammad himself is a terrorist. I hate that ambivalence in a cartoon, not knowing quite what the message is. We could be misreading the intentions of the artist entirely.

“There is an awful duality about cartoonists: on the one hand, we feel we must be able to depict anything, we must be free. So as a rule, I try not to be too sensitive about these things, and all cartoonists are guilty of doing things when we have no idea what the reaction is going to be.

“And yet, as a cartoonist, I think there has to be a purpose. I cannot see any reason for these images; they just seem gratuitous. They are meaningless. Depicting Islam, there is no need to show the Prophet.

“Of course now there is so much happening, everything is moving so fast, that this looks like it will all go on and on. And, ironically, we will have to do cartoons about it.”


ZIAUDDIN SARDAR, author of Desperately Seeking Paradise: The Journey of a Sceptical Muslim

“I have spent a lifetime criticising Islam and Muslims, but I am absolutely infuriated by these cartoons. They are a provocative and premeditated insult against Islam, and a violent abuse of power. What people must remember is that we are watching the repetition of an argument that took place in Europe during the Thirties. Then, we were discussing the right to depict Jews in cartoons with racial stereotypes. Now, we are discussing the right to show Muslims.”


ROGER SCRUTON, philosopher

“People of different religions or none can co-exist — so we hope, and so we have reason to believe. But co-existence with someone requires respect for the icons, rituals and symbols of his faith.

“It is as wrong to mock the religious taboos of a Muslim as it is to pour scorn on the icons of Christianity. Unfortunately, because we have got used to the continual childish blasphemy against the Christian faith that passes for sophistication in the film industry, on television and in the art schools, we think that others, whose experience of Western society is more recent and who are not yet inoculated against its hooligan iconoclasm, will also respond with a saddened shrug when people pour scorn on their faith.

“We have so lost the habit of respect for sacred things that we are astonished to discover that others can still be devastated by public acts of desecration. This kind of blasphemy is not a form of free speech, any more than pornography is. On the contrary, it is the kind of behaviour that makes free speech impossible.”


A.C. GRAYLING, philosopher

“Free speech is the fundamental civil liberty. Without it none of the others is possible. I applaud the newspapers in Europe that have shown solidarity with Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten newspaper by reprinting the cartoons, and regard our own Foreign Secretary as pusillanimous in buckling to the artificially inflated hysteria of those who think that feeling offended gives them a licence to censor other people’s freedom to criticise and satirise whomever they wish.”


MICHAEL FRAYN, author
“I am strongly in favour of freedom to comment on anything, including religious matters. There needs to be some possibility to protect not only from direct incitement but from things that lead indirectly to violence. I think the spread of falsehood that can incite fear and hatred is something that should be controlled. I think people should be perfectly free to caricature any aspect of religion they wish. I am always baffled as to why it is considered blasphemous. It is made clear in Islam that Muhammad is not a divine figure. He is a human figure.”


TONY BENN, former minister

“People’s faith should be respected. To say anything that offends against the faith of others is a real mistake. (The cartoons) have caused great offence at a very sensitive time. This is not a question of illegality; that is nonsense. You just do not insult people.”


THE RIGHT REV RICHARD HARRIES, the Bishop of Oxford

“Those newspapers that have decided not to print the cartoons at this time have acted wisely and in the public good. Freedom of speech is fundamental to our society and all religions need to be open to criticism.

“But this freedom needs to be exercised responsibly with a sensitivity to cultural differences. Respect for the deeply held convictions of others as well as freedom of speech is the mark of a civilised society.”


SIR JONATHAN SACKS, Chief Rabbi

“Never before have we lived so closely with people whose cultures and sensitivities are so different from our own. It is as if the whole lexicon of anthropology has come to life and we are living in the middle of it.

“Many schools I visit have children from as many as 40 or 50 different countries. And the children I meet have a wisdom that sometimes we adults lack. They feel enlarged, not threatened, by diversity. They know not to assault someone else’s deeply held convictions.

“Like the Christians of my childhood, they know that each of us cares deeply about something but not the same thing; and they try to respect that fact. Civilisation needs civility. Judaism says that putting someone to shame is like bloodshed. At the end of every prayer we pray, we ask God to guard our tongue from evil.”


IBRAHIM MOGRA, senior member of the Muslim Council of Britain

“Muslims are upset, distraught and angry. I am urging them to calm down and take stock of their own lives. We should all remain within the law and not be provoked by hot-heads on both sides. Muslims take seriously the Koranic injunctions to listen to the Prophet and not to be forward in the presence of God or his messenger.

“Because of these teachings it is very easy for Muslims to feel hurt and pain when such an important person is villified in this manner. Most Muslims believe Muhammad’s teachings were primarily about living in peace and harmony with the rest of the world. So to depict him as a terrorist is deeply distressing.”


DR ANTHONY SELDON, Master of Wellington College

“Something that is grossly offensive to another culture has to be taken into account. It is completely wrong to make it a principle of freedom because in any free society you have to accept that others have taboos. The absolute principle exists the other way round too. Muslims can make expressions of horror or contempt or injury clear, but they are guilty of the same intolerance if they make physical threats on other people.”


SHAHID MALIK, Labour MP

“A bit of self-discipline is what is needed. In my view, in this country we are at least two decades ahead of some of our partners in Europe on the issues of integration, minority communities, race and religion. I have spoken in many of these countries and I am truly horrified. There is no better place in Europe than Britain to be Muslim.

“But Muslims will be feeling today as if they are the new Jews of Europe. It is ironic that some of the cartoon caricatures reprinted in the German newspapers are similar to some of the ones used to depict Judaism and Jews in the 1930s. The point is that publications have run with this story not from the traditional news perspective but from some kind of macho media statement about freedom of expression”


PHILIP PULLMAN, author

“Religions are keen to assure us that God will punish wickedness in ways even more ingenious and extensive than human beings can devise; if blasphemy is obnoxious to the Almighty, the best response of his human followers is surely to rub their hands with glee at the thought of what will come to the blasphemers in due course, and not seek to pre-empt God’s judgment with human laws.”

www.timesonline.co.uk/article...,00.html

How it all began:

On September 30, 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. These had been commissioned by the culture editor Flemming Rose, after he learned that the children's book author Kare Bluitgen had been unable to find an illustrator for his new book project: the life of the prophet Mohammed, as told for children. "He wanted to see how deep the self-censorship in Denmark lies," today's Zeit quotes Rose as saying in a detailed background article. Muslim organisations protested against the caricatures and organised a trip through Arab countries to show the pictures abroad and gain support for their cause. But in addition to the "twelve incriminating caricatures from Jyllands-Posten (...) additional blasphemous drawings, much more insulting and tasteless whose origins are unknown" were also being shown around, as Spiegel Online reported yesterday. Kaare Quist, journalist at Ekstra Bladet, explained to Spiegel Online, that "in the file, there are caricatures in which, for example, the prophet is depicted as a paedophile and a pig or a praying Muslim is being raped by a dog."


December 9, 2005

In Scandinavia, the caricatures and the reaction were already being hotly debated in the winter. Jyllands-Posten was subject to some criticism. But the Danish paper Berlingske Tidense had had enough when the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which represents 56 Muslim states, lodged a formal complaint against Denmark with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. "The OIC has overstepped the limit of what is acceptable with this campaign," the newspaper comments. "To involve the UN in this matter is a clear abuse of the organisation. Of course, it's convenient for certain members of the OIC to make a fuss, and to get their citizens to make a fuss, about some cartoons printed in a faraway country. After all, that deflects attention from the problems these countries have in terms of respecting human rights, religious freedom and freedom of opinion."


January 11, 2006

The Swedish paper Dagens Nyheter felt the Danish government was right to side with Jyllands-Postens in the Mohammed cartoons debate and insist on freedom of the press and freedom of opinion. "The government left no room for doubt in this issue, and has therefore earned the respect and support of its EU counterparts. However, like its EU counterparts, it has also failed to accomplish the much more difficult task of establishing an open society for all its citizens. Part of the Muslim population in European countries is still having difficulties coping with an open society."

January 17, 2006

Writing in Sydsvenskan, Swedish commentator Tor Billgren does not understand why the Norwegian newspaper Magazinet has reprinted the controversial cartoons. Billgren sees this as a provocation as, according to him, the discussion of the past few months was not just about freedom of opinion, but also about respect for other religions and cultures. "This is the same strategy employed by the Red Army Faction in West Germany in the 1970s. The object of its terrorist attacks was to escalate the confrontation between the police and the authorities so that 'the true face of fascism' would be revealed and the nation's proletarians would rise up and revolt. In the same way, fundamental Christians are trying to provoke Islam into showing its 'true face' in order to strengthen people's opposition to Islam."


January 19, 2006

The Danish paper Kristeligt Dagblad responds to the criticism of Denmark's integration policies in Swedish and German newspapers. The criticism centres on the Danish government's introduction of new and tighter immigration policies and the dispute over cartoons portraying Mohammed. The author points out that in Sweden discussion about integration policy and other awkward developments is taboo. "An open and, every now and then fierce debate can help to prevent hidden frustrations from building up. In Sweden, which is currently experiencing a new wave of neo-Nazi violence, there are many more cases of racist violence than in Denmark. The same goes for Germany, where open discussion about the problems created by immigration was suppressed for many years."


January 27, 2006

In response to the cartoons, the Danish paper Dagbladet Information reports that Egyptian companies have started to boycott Danish products. According to the paper's acting editor-in-chief Bent Winther, they're simply attempting to conceal the democratic shortcomings of their own country with their actions. But Winther also criticises Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. "The prime minister should have agreed to attend the meeting proposed by Arab ambassadors. This would have given him the opportunity to explain the Danish government's position. As we all know, dialogue promotes mutual understanding and diplomacy is the final vent before the kettle boils over and war breaks out. Now Anders Fogh Rasmussen is stuck in a no win situation. His opportunities for dialogue have run out. If he takes action, everybody will know that Denmark's export trade takes precedence over its principles. If he doesn't react, the boycotting of Danish products will probably spread throughout the Muslim world."


January 31, 2006

Carsten Juste, editor in chief of Jyllands-Posten publishes an open letter addressed to Muslims all over the world in which he apologises for the cartoons' impact (in English and Arabic): "Serious misinterpretations of a series of drawings of the prophet Mohammed have recently led to a lot of anger and the boycotting of Danish products in the Muslim world. Perhaps owing to cultural differences, the act of publishing these 12 cartoons has been interpreted as a campaign against Muslims in Denmark and the rest of the world. I categorically deny these accusations. We have no intention of offending people because of their beliefs. If we have done so, it was unintentional. Jyllands-Posten disassociates itself from any kind of symbolic act aimed at demonising certain nationalities, religions or population groups."

Gilles Kepel, a professor at the Institute of Political Sciences in Paris and a specialist in the Muslim world, says in an interview in the French Liberation that "the notion of blasphemy remains an extremely sensitive one in a Muslim world that lives with the feeling of being under siege and that Islam is a religion under threat – even though many preachers and imams go around asserting that it is going to conquer the world. ... It is understandable that believers should consider themselves appalled by a drawing depicting the founder of their religion as a terrorist. While certain terrorists are islamists, that in no way means that all Muslims are."

Jurek Kuczkiewicz observes in an editorial in the Belgian paper Le Soir, "It is at once revealing and distressing that this whole affair of the 'Muhammad drawings' has occurred in Europe. That is, in the part of the world where freedom of expression remains least burdened by the 'politically correct', but where cultural and racial diversity have raised tolerance to the status of religion. The demand for tolerance, however, cannot limit the ideal of freedom to the level of the least tolerant among us. Whatever their faith."

In the German tageszeitung, Reinhard Wolff describes the publication of the cartoons as an act of "calculated provocation". "Over the past few years Denmark has gained a reputation as a country with policies overtly hostile to foreigners. This policy has left its mark not only in politics and law, but also in the public discourse. Leading Danish politicians can refer to entire groups of immigrants as second-class citizens and liken Islam to the plague without triggering major protests." Wolff nonetheless complains that the reactions of the Muslim world have been so predictable. "This reaction leaves the West no alternative but to defend the freedom of the press – even if it's a difficult task considering the unappetising nature of the cartoons."


February 1, 2006

Die Welt publishes one of the cartoons on its front page. Die tageszeitung, Tagesspiegel and Berliner Zeitung print them as well.

Even after the apology by Jyllands-Posten, the Mohammed cartoon dispute continues to rage. Yesterday a fatwa was pronounced against Danish soldiers stationed in Iraq and the Jyllands-Posten offices in Arhus and Copenhagen had to be evacuated after a bomb threat. In the commentary columns of today's edition, the paper goes on the offensive again. The newspaper points out that both it and the Danish government had extended a hand to the Muslim world, and that now it was up to the Islamic organisations and governments to calm people down. "You would have thought this crazy situation could hardly get worse, but the experiences of the past few days have taught us to be more cautious with such predictions... If the Danish imams and the diplomats responsible for setting the fire were willing to put it out, they could perhaps do so. It's up to them now to show whether they're willing to do so."

The controversy can't simply be reduced to a discussion about freedom of expression, writes Cecilia Bornäs in the Swedish newspaper Sydsvenskan. "The cartoons weren't published in a political vacuum. They were published as a token of friendship with the government. People who sought protection in Denmark are being treated in a manner reminiscent of Apartheid. The debate focuses on the cartoons, yet the reaction of the Arab world would hardly have been as strong if the Danish government didn't hold Muslims and Islam in such contempt. This is about concrete policies, not just some drawings in a newspaper. That's why this affair can't be compared with the controversy triggered by Salman Rushdie's 'The Satanic Verses'.

France Soir outdoes the other French newspapers by publishing the cartoons. The Online service of Nouvel Observateur interviews Serge Faubert, a senior editor at the paper: "Not everyone is obliged to share the strictures of a religion, whichever one it may be. ... I believe freedom of expression wears thin if one fails to use it. And caricature is an element of free expression. We are a republican newspaper and we fight for republican values. The moment that someone wants to forbid caricatures, that is the moment we publish them."


February 2, 2006

The Nouvel Obs announces that the editor in chief of France Soir, Jacques Lefranc, has been fired. The French-Egyptian owner of the paper, Raymond Lakah, apologised last night "to the Muslim community and all those who were insulted by the publication."

The New York Times reports on all the European papers that printed the caricatures. Whether the Times printed the caricature cannot be determined on the internet.

Flemming Rose, cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, claims in an interview with the Czech newspaper Lidove noviny that Danish Muslims travelled to the Middle East with the express purpose of stirring up the Mohammed cartoon dispute. "They deliberately spread lies about the way Muslims are treated in Denmark and about my paper there. Among other things, they used two Mohammed cartoons which have never appeared in a Danish paper. What we are witnessing here is a struggle between a modern secular democracy in which everyone has the right to say and write what they want and forces which are trying to push their religious taboos on people who adhere to beliefs other than their own."

In an interview with Jörgen Steen Nielsen, Islam expert Tariq Ramadan describes in the Danish newspaper Dagbladet Information the recent escalation in the dispute surrounding the Mohammed cartoons as crazy. "On both sides there are people with a vested interest in an escalation of the dispute. They goad the other side with overreactions and provocations, and pull a lot of people in their wake. On the Muslim side the dictatorial regimes are using the conflict to demonstrate that they are the best defenders of Muslims and Islam. On the European side there's a right-wing bloc which has made it their business to spread an image of Muslims as undermining freedom of expression and wanting to change Western society. It will take clever and sensible people on both sides to put an end to the insults and overreactions."

In the Portugese newspaper Jornal de Noticias editorial writer Rui Camacho is surprised that the editor of Jyllands-Posten should be amazed by the reaction the caricatures have provoked in the Muslim world. "Salman Rushdie could have explained to him what happens when one questions the Muslim prophet!" Camacho notes ironically. "But the most surprising thing is that there are still intellectuals out there ready with a justification when people react to any humourous treatment of the prophet by burning books, flags or newspapers. The editor of Jyllands-Posten was right not to apologise. This is not just about blasphemy toward a God that does not laugh and does not permit others to laugh at him, it is about higher values, those pertaining to freedom of expression and freedom to laugh. ... Fanatics may burn the Danish flag because they don't like a few drawings, but not here, not in Europe, not under the Western firmament."

The Swiss daily Le Temps runs a drawing by Chappatte on its front page in which the caricaturist depicts himself saying, 'I did not draw him' while holding up a sheet of paper with the words 'Muhammad with a giant schnoz'. The editorial writer Patricia Briel analyses the consequences of the dispute. "When all is said and done, the reaction of the Arab-Muslim countries reflects the urgency and necessity of launching another Ijtihad, the effort that consists of constantly revising the interpretation of Islam's precepts in order to adapt them to the contemporary world. Today, several Muslim intellectuals are urging people to maintain a healthy distance from sacred issues – the only approach that is liable to prevent Islam from being manipulated by religious extremists. Taking up Ijtihad again, interrupted in the eleventh century, would encourage a more fruitful dialogue between Western democracies and Islamic societies."

The German Feuilletons also took up the cartoons:

In the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Christian Geyer calls for the Mohammed caricatures to be published in as many European media as possible: "Only Europe-wide solidarity can show: religious fundamentalists who do not respect the difference between satire and blasphemy have a problem not only with Denmark, but with the entire Western world."

In die Welt Boris Kalnoky writes: "It is apparant that the demonstrations are the biggest, and the diplomatic reactions are the most vehement in countries where authoritarian regimes are under domestic pressure from Islamicist opposition forces." The boycott measures adopted also show originality. In Egypt, for example, a Danish credit is being blocked. Rainer Gatermann reports on the most recent reactions in Denmark: "Erik Svendsen, Bishop of Copenhagen, said: 'We distance ourselves both from the drawings, and from the burning of the Danish flag, which shows a white cross."

In the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Aldo Keel reports both on the escalating controversy over the Danish cartoons, and on an initiative for reconciliation: "Herbert Pundik, former editor in chief of the Danish paper Politiken, suggests a highly visible sign of peace in the construction of a large mosque with a minaret and dome. To this day Copenhagen's Muslims must pray in back rooms and disused factories. The major papers should take it upon themsevles to collect the money for this 'popular donation'."

Frankfurter Rundschau correspondent Hannes Gamillscheg accuses the Danes of xenophobia: "It's no coincidence that this issue came to a head in Denmark: nowhere in Europe has the debate over immigrants been so nasty, or the immigration laws tightened so brutally. (...) In the most influential media, immigrants are consistently represented as a collective problem, never as an asset. Representatives of the Danish People's Party (DPP) have called Islam a 'cancerous abscess" and a 'terror movement'. 'War of civilisations?' asked the party head Pia Kjærsgaard, 'there is only one civilisation and it's ours.'"

Aktham Suliman, Germany's Al Jazeera correspondent, says in an interview with die tageszeitung, "I'm insulted by some things that get said and thought about Muslims here in Europe. The fact that Mohammed is being depicted is not such a problem, even if this is proscribed by the Koran. What bothers me is the lack of respect that this represents."

Also in the taz, Robert Misik regards the whole spat between the Muslims and "liberal militants" as a tempest in a teapot and suggests, "Kids, go and play outside."

There is already an entry at Wikipedia on the topic. Arabic reactions on English are hard to find. Al Jazeera has had various reports but no commentaries. Die Zeit publishes a weblog of two German Journalists who report on the reactions in Yemen.


February 3, 2006

Would we have published the Mohammed cartoons if we had known what the repercussions would be? asks Jyllands-Posten editor-in-chief Carsten Juste in the lead article. "Today, the answer would by 'no'. Had we known that it would result in death threats and put the lives of Danish citizens in danger, of course we wouldn't have published the cartoons. It's obvious that, in the light of what has happened, the price for this journalistic initiative is too high. But the point is that nobody could have foreseen the consequences, and that's why it's a moot question. We couldn't have known that a group of imams would travel to the Middle East to spread lies and disinformation about Jyllands-Posten and Danish society as a whole. We could handle a trade boycott and the Confederation of Danish Industries' selling out our principles, but genuine death threats mark the border between what can be accepted and what can't.

In an interview with Le Figaro, French philosopher Marcel Gauchet is critical of how quick the West has been to bow down to Islamic demands: "The Arab countries are upset, but do their bans really reflect the opinion of the populace? Who do the protesters active in Europe really represent? We have every right to cast doubt on this alleged insult. How good it would be to set a team onto this affair, to find out who is really behind this revolt in the name of faith. The press is naive to take the supposed unity behind Islamic indignation at face value. Is that not falling into the first trap?" Gauchet also questions the ban on images of the Prophet: "It does not extend to non-Muslims."

"A battle between two civilisations is unfolding before our eyes," writes Milan Vodicka in the Czech paper Mlada fronta dnes. "When Muslim governments start demanding apologies and for the editors to be punished, it's clear they have absolutely no idea how our part of the world functions... If the Jihad Today newspaper printed a caricature of my God, I would cancel my subscription, and perhaps write a letter to the editor in chief, but I wouldn't stop eating dried dates. The Muslim world, however, is a collective world, and therefore they see blame, too, as collective blame."

Dominique Von Burg, the editor-in-chief of La Tribune de Geneve, proclaims solidarity with Jyllands-Posten on behalf of his newspaper. He argues that "freedom of expression does not preclude responsibility. Not everything is necessarily fit to publish, and errors of judgement can be made. But that does not mean we should take the argument further and rule out publishing anything that may be provocative. Isn't provocation sometimes a blunt way of encouraging reflection, of triggering a debate? ... One can respect something and still disagree with it. If a caricature is offensive to someone's sensibilities, this needs to be said. Even loud and strong. But for states to intervene as they have been doing, for an entire country to be nailed to the stake for the actions of a single newspaper - this is inadmissible."

Heiki Suurkask, writing in the Estonian paper Eesti päevaleht, says offending minorities can't be excused by quoting the principle of freedom of expression. "Denmark regards itself as a stronghold of tolerance, in which immigrants can find a home and gays and lesbians are free to live their lives as they please. But now, a different picture has emerged, one of a country which doesn't respect people of another religion. Denmark's most important newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, has achieved global fame. By publishing these cartoons it has managed to offend a billion people, for the sake of testing the limits of tolerance. But Muslims do feel insulted when their prophet is portrayed as a terrorist. Would we Estonians really react any differently?"

Although this affair is worrying and ominous, those who support the European project have good reason to be happy about the cartoon dispute, the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter comments. For the first time we are seeing what pro-Europeans had so eagerly awaited, namely a pan-European public which acknowledges its commitment to common European values, it writes. "In Europe, God belongs in civil society. This isn't to say that people shouldn't be open about their religious affiliations. But they shouldn't try to force them on others or use them as a weapon against democratic society. Not all those who live in Europe share these values, but the vast majority do. This is why it's so crucial that the European public discuss and defend this system of values. The staggering thing about it all, however, is that it strengthens the opposition of 'us and them', of Christians against Muslims, of natives against immigrants, of West against East."

No British papers have printed the caricatures. Yesterday the BBC showed the first page of France-Soir where all of the cartoons had been printed. According to a report by the mediaguardian (accessible free of charge on registration), The Spectator also printed one of the cartoons on its website, but then took it down again on order of its publisher Andrew Neil.

In mediaguardian, Sarah Joseph, editor of the Muslim lifestyle magazine emel, reminds Spain, France, Italy and Germany of their nasty history of fascism. "The Holocaust did not occur overnight. It took time to establish a people as subhuman, and cartoons played their part. Does Europe not remember its past and the Nazi propaganda of Der Stürmer? Now the great shape-shifter of fascism seems to have taken on the clothes of 'freedom of speech'. If these cartoons were designed to provoke Muslim fundamentalists, maybe they have done more to reveal the prejudices of Europe. Europe has a history of turning on its minorities. Will that be its future too?"

mediaguardian further reports that the Jordanian paper al-Shihan published three of the 12 cartoons. Al-Shihans "points out that Jyllands-Posten has apologised for offending Muslims but for some reason, nobody in the Muslim world wants to hear the apology. 'Who offends Islam more? A foreigner who endeavours to draw the prophet as described by his followers in the world, or a Muslim armed with an explosive belt who commits suicide in a wedding party in Amman or anywhere else?'"

The Daily Telegraph reports that Jihad al-Momani, the editor of al-Shihan who published the caricatures, was sacked. "He said that he was aiming 'to show his readers the extent of the Danish offence'", the Telegraph quotes him.

A commentary in the Daily Telegraph explains why the newspaper didn't publish the cartoos: "Our restraint is in keeping with British values of tolerance and respect for the feelings of others. However, we are equally in no doubt that a small minority of Muslims would be offended by such a publication to an extent where they would threaten, and perhaps even use, violence. This is a problem that the whole of the Western world needs to confront frankly, and not sidestep... Those Muslims who cannot tolerate the openness and robustness of intellectual debate in the West have perhaps chosen to live in the wrong culture. We cannot put it better than the editorial in an Arab paper in which the cartoons briefly appeared yesterday (before all copies were suddenly withdrawn): "Muslims of the world, be reasonable."

Most German papers today were critical about publishing the cartoons.

Writing in the Süddeutsche Zeitung Rudolf Chimelli demands polite treatment of Muslim culture: "We've already seen in our papers various depictions of grim, bearded terrorists, lusty smiling oil sheiks, dumb mullahs. One hope that such pictures have meaning and comic, they are, in and of themselves, harmless. But by a sensitive minority, they will be used for purposes of cheap propaganda."

Stephan Speicher, writing in the Berliner Zeitung, finds that the caricatures in question are not worth all the hot air: "even unshakable rights can be used wrongly. And that is the case with these much-discussed cartoons. They are no clever objections to the irrational, no Voltairian critique, even though France Soir would like to portray them as such. They are – and this applies in particular to Mohammed with a bomb in his turban - evidence of a xenophobia which is now wondering why those offended are so offended."

In the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, "ras" accuses the paper Jyllands-Posten of using the "mediocre" Mohammed caricatures to create a "provocation for provocation's sake." And worse, "for months, the newspaper refused to apologise for having insulted religious feelings, thus creating the basis for a full political exploitation of the affair."

In the Tagesspiegel, one voice to the contrary: Ali S., a Muslim German student of Iranian origin. "While we Muslims are constantly demanding equality of rights and accusing the West of applying double standards, we ourselves are turning into fascists who want special rights here, there and everywhere. If caricatures of the Christian prophet Jesus are possible in Europe, then they should also be allowed for the prophet Mohammed. Why should we we granted special treatment: is our blood redder than the others'?"

www.welt.de/z/plog/blog....-a_chronology